Legal question for all you jus soli types. Suppose a foreign woman was orbiting the earth. Does the child become an American only if they happen to be over the United States when he pokes his head out?

[ Legal question for all you jus soli types. Suppose a foreign woman was orbiting the earth. Does the child become an American only if they happen to be over the United States when he pokes his head out?
This is why your argument is so stupid. Ponder that for a bit. ]

No they become the world’s first Extra-Terestial, well sides the ones that are stored at Area 51 ;)

Orbit isn’t infinity, but it’s above national airspace. That precedent was set with Sputnik. It’s what allows spy satellites to fly without being shot down. It’s a pointless question. If a woman bears a child in orbit, its citizenship would be based on hers, unless it was aboard a sovereign facility of some sort (ISS wouldn’t count as US territory, due to its international nature).

Orbit isnt infinity, but its above national airspace. That precedent was set with Sputnik. Its what allows spy satellites to fly without being shot down. Its a pointless question. If a woman bears a child in orbit, its citizenship would be based on hers, unless it was aboard a sovereign facility of some sort (ISS wouldnt count as US territory, due to its international nature).

You can orbit at any altitude in a thought experiment, which is what this is. Nitpicking about the irrelevant parameters of the thought experiment is just dodging the question. For those of you who simply cannot get beyond forcing an idea into a real world scenario, just think of it as a plane flying over the country in route to another country.

29
posted on 08/31/2011 10:41:26 AM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

just think of it as a plane flying over the country in route to another country.

There is nothing intrinsic about being in national airspace that would confer citizenship on a child born in an airplane, either. For instance, if it were an Air France flight, the interior of the aircraft would be French territory. The woman wouldn't enter the US until she landed there and cleared customs.

There is nothing intrinsic about being in national airspace that would confer citizenship on a child born in an airplane, either. For instance, if it were an Air France flight, the interior of the aircraft would be French territory. The woman wouldn't enter the US until she landed there and cleared customs.

So it is the Landing that would confer citizenship? What is the child before landing? In limbo?

This argument dovetails with the Abortion argument. There are those who are fond of legal technicalities that argue a child doesn't exist as a person till it exits it's mother. How do Freepers feel about THAT argument. I dare say most won't agree with it in regards to personhood, are fine with advocating it for citizenship.

32
posted on 08/31/2011 11:54:28 AM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

No, the child is the same citizenship as the mother, or a citizen of whatever country the airliner is from, depending on that nation's laws. If it were an American aircraft, it might be considered an American citizen, even if it occurred in another country's air space. Landing would change nothing.

No, the child is the same citizenship as the mother, or a citizen of whatever country the airliner is from, depending on that nation's laws. If it were an American aircraft, it might be considered an American citizen, even if it occurred in another country's air space. Landing would change nothing.

What is the threshold for acquiring jus soli? If it's not being born inside the boundary, and it's not touching the soil, by what method does it operate? Again, I am reminded of the Liberal argument for "Instant Personhood" once a child emerges from the womb, but "non personhood" just prior to that time.

Of course the pro-life and jus sanguinius concepts are in complete agreement with each other. (From the moment of conception.) This sudden and wrenching change from one status to another seems to be a sort of ad hoc.

34
posted on 08/31/2011 12:10:14 PM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

What is the threshold for acquiring jus soli? If it's not being born inside the boundary, and it's not touching the soil, by what method does it operate?

I already explained, the interior of an aircraft in flight is sovereign territory of the nation in which it is registered. If it is an Air France flight, it would be as if the child were born in France. It has nothing to do with the air space in which it is flying.

I have no idea what kind of point you are attempting to make with this "thought experiment."

I already explained, the interior of an aircraft in flight is sovereign territory of the nation in which it is registered. If it is an Air France flight, it would be as if the child were born in France. It has nothing to do with the air space in which it is flying.

Alien space ship of no Earth nationality?

I have no idea what kind of point you are attempting to make with this "thought experiment."

Sure you do. I am demonstrating how ridiculous is an idea of citizenship based on hair splitting about being born inside our borders.

It has been a useful exercise for me. It made me realize that Abortion and jus soli citizenship are connected by the same thread, while pro-life and jus sanguinius are also connected by a common thread.

Abortion proponents argue that an unborn child is NOT A PERSON until born. Jus Soli proponents argue that a child is not a CITIZEN until born, and then it depends on where the child is born.

Pro-life, and jus sangunius both argue that the characteristics of the person are created at the moment of conception, not at some later date by some threshold criteria.

36
posted on 08/31/2011 1:21:06 PM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

A fetus is a human being at conception. It is not a citizen. Having its citizenship be determined by time and place of conception would be ridiculous since, unlike a birth, it wouldn’t be possible to authenticate it.

This is a really dumb argument.

And if it was born on an alien spaceship, it would have the citizenship of whatever planet the ship was from.

A fetus is a human being at conception. It is not a citizen. Having its citizenship be determined by time and place of conception would be ridiculous since, unlike a birth, it wouldnt be possible to authenticate it.

This is a really dumb argument.

If you think it is a dumb argument, you aren't seeing the ramifications of it. The Liberal argument is that a fetus is not a person TIL BORN. The Jus Soli argument is that a fetus is not a citizen TIL BORN.

The Pro-life Argument is that a fetus is a person from the moment of conception. The Jus Sanguinus argument is that a person inherits their characteristics of citizenship from their parents at the moment of conception.

The Liberal Pro-Abortion argument shares a "qualification threshold" with the jus soli argument; That being Birth.

The Conservative Pro-Life argument shares an inherent characteristic of being a person with that same characteristic of being a citizen; by virtue of the parents passing on this characteristic.

And if it was born on an alien spaceship, it would have the citizenship of whatever planet the ship was from

Another dimension where they don't use planets. And where every molecule is the result of one shared multitasking particle. :)

The point is to boil down the "place of birth" argument to it's bare minimum threshold, and then show how silly it is to base citizenship on this minimum threshold. Citizenship ought not be decided by the few seconds or minutes it takes for the head to emerge, it ought to be regarded as a characteristic inherent in the child because of inheritance from the parents. It is the more logical way of looking at it, and it is consistent with the Pro-Life position.

38
posted on 08/31/2011 2:22:42 PM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

If you want to change the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment have at it, but this conception nonsense is unhelpful.

Not at all. I am merely pointing out how silly it is to claim that birth alone within the boundaries makes someone a "natural born citizen". Since you find the idea to be nonsense, I have made my point. It IS nonsense to use the standard of birth within a border to claim that someone is a "natural born citizen." Our orbiting soviet cosmette demonstrates how silly it is for someones citizenship to be governed by a presence within an area.

41
posted on 08/31/2011 5:08:30 PM PDT
by DiogenesLamp
(1790 Congress: No children of a foreign father may be a citizen.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.